tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 7, 2012 7:00am-10:00am EDT
then the npr political editor for the issues in the 2012 house and senate races. and later, the latest on the civil war in syria. "washington journal" is next. ♪ >> good morning and welcome to "washington journal." as campaign 2012 hits its final month, the presidential candidates are using the economy to frame their vision for the future and what they would do for the american dream. we saw a jobs numbers that showed an unproven unemployment rate.
we would like to hear your opinions. has the american dream been downsized? you can also share your opinion on social media. send us a tweet by writing @cspanwj. you can also join the conversation on facebook. or you can e-mail us. the front page of "the washington post"looks out with the call life of a salesman. he always finds to -- he always seems to find optimism in the worst of circumstances. here is another chance.
75% said harder. you agree or disagree that america is the land of opportunity? 86% said they agree with the statement. more immediate assessments of the economy trajectory show little change from the most recent heartland of monitor poll conducted in may. compared to been the share of americans has ticked up only slightly while the percentage who believe their personal financial situation will improve over the next year remains virtually unchanged. what do you think about this? ryan and joins us from illinois. caller: the key word from your statements is a american. the problem is the investment class that runs the world has globalize the economy. they view american workers as just a worker.
you are no different than a worker in pakistan or india or china or where ever. they apply the worldwide economics of the labor market place to your value. a poorly educated semi motivated american worker is not a very valuable commodity on the world market. that is the problem. if he went the economy to improve -- if you want the economy to approve, we need to be nationalists -- global financial dominance is what is killing us. the investor class is ruining the worker class of america. host: 4 you yourself, has your idea of the american dream changed in the last couple of years? caller: i have been very fortunate. i would say it has.
i am much more cynical now. there seems to be a minority of americans that believe the most important thing in the world is to get rich as soon as they can and they do not care how they do it. that is killing 80% of the american workers in this country. host: mary, where are you calling us from? caller: illinois. from what i heard from the last caller, i a greed. we cannot expect to be forever the super power most important person in the whole universe. we have to be part of the world and deal with what is out there. it is changing. host: what do you think about the american dream for yourself? caller: i have been very lucky. i am one of the people that are doing well.
my husband died of cancer, and my children are struggling more than they would be if the economy was better. i am word about my children and grandchildren more than myself. host: you personally have not had to downsize your idea of the american dream? caller: we have had savings. i have enough. host: this is the on the republican line. caller: what has happened over the last three years which has affected a lot of people is because of a quantitative easing we have lost 50% of the value of the american dollar. gas prices are not up, it is the value of the dollar that has gone down. this is a reckless policy. i cannot really see how there is a benefit to doing something
like this. it the values the labor value and really does not allow us to support the rest of the world like we have been doing the for about 200 years. host: looking more at this washington post front page story. profiling a manassas, virginia salesman. it says -- sout you can see this image here of the russian to an appointment.
-- rushing to an appointment. our next caller is ted joining us from oregon on the democrat'' line. caller: i can understand how the man would be depressed. there is not a lot of pull building going on. unfortunately, they do not have any work. me, i have been on the oregon coast for 23 years and i have a very loyal client base and they really do not care what the truck says, it does care that the plumber is driving the truck. in 10 years i will retire.
it will be the end of my plumbing. i have been working for him since i was 17. i was active duty air force as a plumber. i do feel sorry for people. unfortunately for them, they played with the bankers. i have never had a credit card or a loan. i really do care for all people. have a good day. host: you, too. here are some comments from twitter. what do you think, rick, in massachusetts. caller: i think it is still the best land of opportunity. the opportunity for most people is not what it was for the world
war ii generation. one, entered touched on globalization. i have a friend who's half of his work force is in india. the flip side is if you want to open a company, you have days to create a level playing field. we spend too much time poring about the elderly in this country and not enough work that what it will do for future generations. i think there needs to be some balance. i think it is shameful the amount of energy we spend on the past, i am including myself. host: are you a senior citizen? caller: short. but we do not need to spend $200,000 on the last month of care for an elderly person and
more about grandchildren. they say it, but they will not vote that way. i support medicare reform today, not 10 years from now. host: the washington post profile. it says, what has happened to him now economically is the wins are coming much less it goes on to talk about other motivational techniques that he tried to get things rolling for his business. we are asking you whether you think the american dream has downsized. i just read an excerpt from the
washington post profiling a virginia man. it says "selling success when the american dream is downsized ." let's listen to a caller from florida. is this russell? are you with us? caller: i just wanted to say, there has been a lot of talking about downsizing small businesses. the reality is, there is no choice in the matter. the way the money is being spent, everywhere else in the country right now -- the small businessman will be the last on the list. i hope the mayor romney gets elected because i feel he will do a little bit more -- i hope mitt romney gets elected because i think you will do a little bit more for small business. i wanted to say one other thing. i have never been rewarding for
failing. i had an auto repair shop. i had to close my business recently because of what president obama did when he came in and bail out the auto industry. all he did was to reward people that failed. if we are going to continue to pay taxes, we should not be using taxes to reward people who fail. we should be using them to reward people that want to work. everybody in this country should succeed, not just people in government. host: president obama gave an address yesterday talking about how congress should act to keep taxes low. let's take a listen. >> 97% of small-business owners will not see their taxes go up next year. this is something everybody says they agree on. it should have gotten done months ago. republicans in congress are
standing in the way. there are holding tax cuts for 98% of americans hostage until they pass tax cuts for of the richest 2%. congress needs to step up and provide every responsible homeowner a chance to save $3,000 a year on mortgage at refinancing at lower rates. i give them a plan to do that in february. it is a plan that has the support of independent nonpartisan economists. republicans will not let it come to a vote. ask them how that helps homeowners. congress needs to step up and pass my plan to create a job corps to help our returning heroes find jobs as cops, firefighters and park rangers across the country. republicans in the senate voted that plane down. ask them why somebody who fights for the country abroad should have to fight for a job when they come home? ask them to get back to work and did these things done. if we're going to get the
economy moving forward, there is no time for political games. everybody needs to do their part. lay your representative know where you stand. tell them if they want your vote, they need to stand with you and not in the way of the recovery. dawn int's go to arlington, virginia. we are asking if you think the american dream has been downsized. caller: i come to this country as a very young to women. i am cosmetologist. now i am tired -- now i am retired. i hope mitt romney wins the election. he will create jobs. i love this country. we need romney. he can win this election.
obama wants to take money from the rich. that is wrong. this is a country for work, making money. you can trade jobs, not take it away from the rich people's money and give it to other people. the middle class has to work. poor people have to work. rich people help by creating jobs. if anybody will be equal, i will go back to where i come from. i come to this country because it is the best country in the world. americans work hard. everybody should pay their price. mr. obama is wanting to do this
country like socialists. i do not think people will take care of this -- mr. obama is very wrong. host: we will be talking about taxes in just a little while. here is what janet says. the national journal heartland of monitor poll asked americans "what are obstacles to getting a head?" 79% said the company is sending jobs overseas was a major obstacle. 71% said rising prices that make the harder to save and make investments. also, the cost of college and graduate school education at 70%. others include competition for work from other countries, too many gains from economic growth
going to big companies and the richest americans. an education system that does not provide enough skills. americans now working as hard today as they did enter previous generations. democrats line in texas. hi, fred. caller: good morning. i want to say that many of the things i have heard people say this morning are correct. but i strongly believe that the reason we are in a downsized economy and situation now is because that has been the deliberate aim of the republican congress to prevent president
obama from winning a second term. they admit that. there is another reason why they have projected for 2013 and beyond is downsized. that is because each of the members of the budget committee has signed that pledge of grover norquist to not under any circumstances increase or began a tax of any amount. the hands of congress are tied by that. host: what about your personal situation? of you changed your idea of the american dream? caller: i see it changing all
around me. it has not affected me all that much because i am retired. host: thomas rights and that has a different perspective. we are looking at another tweet. the allstate national journal heartland monitor poll asked, what are signs of getting ahead? being free of debt is a sign of getting ahead. it also said being able to save it for a comfortable and secure retirement. having a secure job it can rely on even for tough economic times and being employed but also having a lot of time to spend their family and friends. other signs include running your own home and getting regular pay increases throughout your career. becoming wealthy enough to be financially secure and retire early. and then getting a college or graduate degree.
over half of respondents said all of these are signs of getting ahead. gilbert and international, tennessee. caller: i concur with many of the comments this morning. i am a 60-year-old retiree. business has been quite good. i have a daughter that has a college loan problem. what i plan to do is help her to get a home and my son to get a home. i have to change my lifestyle in order to help the next generation. that is what this country has been about four years. as a baby boomer i find it too many baby boomers do not want to sacrifice as our parents did before. it is all about a lifestyle
change. the outsourcing of our nation has changed the way the american dream is still there. you have to change your lifestyle. i think that is the only way the next generation can prosper. host: william from wisconsin, an independent color. caller: good morning. high.ody's wages are too the higher wages go, the poor people get. i am 85 years old. you used to be able to buy a new home for about $8,500 or $9,000. the difference between the rich and the poor was a lot closer. everybody in this country is to damn greedy. vicet's listen to
president joe biden from a convention that took place a couple of weeks ago. they talk about the american dream. >> one more thing to our republican opponents are dead wrong about. america is not a in decline. america is not a denture decline. i have news for gov. romney. -- america is not in decline. it never makes sense -- it has never been a good bet to bet against the american people. never. [cheers and applause] my fellow americans, america is coming back. we are not going back. we have no intention of downsizing the american dream. host: vice-president joe biden
at the convention in charlotte, north carolina. do you think the american dream has been downsized? omar is on our republican line. caller: good morning. the american dream -- spanish, i came from the dominican republic to live that dream. i am a small business owner. i have two businesses. the way that it is going, it is heading to collapse. it feels to me like it is a plan for the government to take over businesses. when you pay high taxes as a businessman and you cannot afford to pay employees, he will close the business. the government will come in and build businesses. the government will pretty much takeover. you have no room to dream.
we have the ipad, the iphones. the reason we have them is because people were able to dream. if we do not have these things available so people can build stuff, it will be a lack for everybody. when you give people the freedom to be who they are and to build stuff and to do stuff without the government there, things can prosper. it is common sense. can tell by looking at obama and listening to the way he speaks, he tries to confuse people by the way he speaks. i am the kind of guy who likes the truth. if you're lying, you are lying. i believe the american dream is heading downhill. unfortunately, i came over here to live that dream. i am living it because i and the kind who is a very successful matter what the situation is. host: it sounds like the american dream has worked for you. caller: right now, but it will
get worse the way it is going. if i say, if we keep going in this direction there is a whole there and if you keep walking you will fall into it, that is what is going on. we have to open our eyes and see what is going on. -we have to put a stop to it. that is the reason i called because i care. i do not care about politics or none of that. it is going so bad it got my attention. host:here is a tweet from eddie. the washington post has another front page story. shielded --ost congress's richest most shielded in deep recession. \ we listen to a bed of president
obama's weekly address. let's listen to the republican weekly address. this is reince priebus. >> america still desperately needs jobs. yet the president's sold proposal would mean fewer jobs. we need a new direction. we cannot afford four more years like the last four. falling in tons, rising prices -- rising prices, $5.50 trillion and national debt and growing turmoil overseas in the middle east. president obama's policies have not worked. as joe biden admitted, the middle class has been buried in the last four years. another four years would just very the middle class even more.
during the 2008 debates, senator obama assured us he fully understood our problems and he had the right solutions. he promised to make health care more affordable. president obama promise to get our spending under control by cutting the deficit in half. he was so confident that shortly after taking office president obama said he would fix the economy in three years or face a one-term proposition. today he has broken the promises. his words have no credibility. host: that was the republican weekly address. ralph from the main joins us on the independent line. caller: i was born in 1950, 61
years old. i have gone through all kinds of things. my dad was in the service -- i have had two fathers. i am taking care of my mother now who is just getting one cut back after another through social security. medical benefits. i am not happy. i know what is going on. in the last five years i have taking care of her 24-7. i have had time to educate myself on what it is. until we understand who the enemy is, nothing will change and their plans will continue. there are manufacturing a war because global international banks and their lackeys have bankrupted the world. derivatives are nothing more than leverage. you have a situation where if you look and research it, the
city of london which is one square mile in the heart of london which is not even governed by the laws of england, the queen of england has to have special permission to go in there. that is the banking center in the world. there is no limit to the rehab provocation of collateral. that means they are manufacturing money out of medicare. that is why we have a two quadrillion derivative debt in the world. a america is only $16 trillion in the debt. the whole world is bankrupt because of that. what about their debt? congress to bail them out last time because they threaten to have martial law in the streets. host: we are going to go to a tweet. do you think the american dream has been downsized? that is the story -- that is the question this morning.
we will be talking more about congressional races in just a little bit this morning on the washington journal. here is another story from the campaign trail. the 40 day early voting period began. we want to share some other stories with the from campaign 2012. here is one related to the issue of voting and ballots from "the new york times."
we are watching how ballots are counted and we will be talking more on a pro washington journal," about early voting and voting issues. we are joined on the democrats' line. do you think the american dream has been downsized? caller: i appreciate the nature of your question specifically, the downsizing of the american dream. i do not think the american dream has ever really changed.
what has changed now is the american situation. i hear many callers call and who are far more intelligent and informed than i am. yet they seem to focus mostly on what is going on right now and seem to have forgotten history. obviously there have been times in this country where due to war or the financial depression are what have you, we have been brought down to our knees. our dream has never changed. i would like to think it is a dream that anyone can come to america and make it cannot be brought down by our government. the american dream is for everyone to come here and be rich, so be it. the bottom line would be there is no less wealth in this
country than there ever was. it simply is disproportionately distributed right now. one last comment. now, i have become a democrat after being a independent. there are times in american history that the government must step in and provide for the poor and provide for what is supposed to be the middle class. there are times for the government to step back and let the free markets operate. this is really a time where we must allow the government to intervene and take some activity in making sure everybody can get some sort of a job and get money in their pockets. that is just how i feel about it. i appreciate the comment about the dream, but the dreams never change and they never will. host: a democratic caller from
florida. caller: you have people from right now becoming a legal, they still make it and work. the problem is these people do the jobs most americans do not want to do. they will survive because their means to survive is different from the people who live here for years. if obama could ask a question to mr. romney, how come he pays less taxes. he pays less taxes than president obama. how come? it is important for people to remember state funds are liquidated because -- i know many people who collect unemployment.
that comes from "the washington post." mike is a republican caller. he is wing and on whether or not the real -- the american dream has been downsized. caller: i think it is an interesting conversation especially on the heels of the last two callers saying they felt the american dream was defined on anyone coming here to make it. he have to define what the american dream and tails. at age 50 years old, i cannot recall having a conversation with anyone in my social order in reference to the american dream. now my parents, grandparents,
educators. we never had a conversation about achieving the american dream. i would like to know really, what is the american dream? we have only just work here and accomplish things in america. we have never taught our children about achieving the american dream. i think we need to talk about what is the american dream before we have the conversation about whether it has been downsized or not. that is all i have to say. host: let's go to virginia to hear from an independent caller. caller: i think the american dream has been downsized. i am 57 years old. 20 years ago if you got a job, your medical was covered. if you bad until you were on top of the world. -- if you got dentil you were on
top of the world. any chain that is hiring, they usually start you off at about $10 an hour. that is $1,600 a month. and you have rent, $4 a gallon gas, your insurance, car, everything out of $1,600 a month. your house and all of that. i do not know. they started this 401k thing somewhere along the line when i was in the navy. they expect people to put money in their to save for their future when they cannot even afford to live. it does not make any sense to me. the american dream has definitely downsized.
the american dream -- you work hard, you put a little bit of money away if you get a decent living wage. $10 an hour is not it. host:a tweet from marcus. we have been talking about the american dream in part because of a story on the front page of "the washington post." it looks at a manassas, virginia pull owner -- pull business owner. how he is fighting to believe in the american dream. thanks for all of your calls this morning. coming up we will take a closer look at president obama and mitt romney's tax plans with a round table discussion. and then later, ken rudin joins
us. first, we preview the weekend talk shows. guest: the topics include campaign 2012, the latest jobs report, and the economy. we read air the programs beginning with "meet the press." newt gingrich, former republican presidential candidate, and arnold schwarzenegger. at 1:00 here "this week" and another appearance from robert gibbs. and bill oreilly, author of the new book "killing kennedy." chris wallace sits down with kelly.
cnn state of the union follows at 3:00. the host welcomes might be one, ted strickland, the former director of the cbo. at 4:00 bob sheiffer talks with david axelrod. the sunday talk shows three erring on c-span radio are brought to you as a public service by the network and c- span. again, they began at noon at"meet the press,"
or go online to cspanradio.org. >> on the sixth day after being an office, we were sitting in the oval office. larry summers said, mr. president, looking at this year 's budget, you will have $1 trillion deficit. he said, i have not done anything yet. >> we cannot keep looking our children in the i knowing that we are going to give them a diminished future. we are spending their money today. it is a very simple idea. mitt romney and i will bring it to washington. we have to stop spending money we do not have it. we must cut spending. we have to get a balanced budget. we must get the debt under control. >> paul ryan and joe biden will face off in their only debate.
you can watch and engage with c- span with our live debate previous starting at 7:00 eastern followed by the debate at 9:00. your reaction, calls, e-mails, and tweets at 10:30. "washington journal" continues. host: we are here to talk about the tax plans of the candidates running for president. just to jump in here,, rebecca wilkins, where they different? guest: both candidates propose extending the bush tax cuts. gov. romney wants to expend all of the bush tax cuts for everyone. president obama just wants to
extend them for people making less than $250,000. that is a fairly significant difference because it does have about a $1 trillion cost. on top of that, gov. romney wants to reduce individual rates by 20% across the board and also reduce the corporate rates down to 25%. president obama has proposed reducing them to 28%. guest: i think that is a fair description. they do have some significant differences. host: we heard a bit in the debate last week about where mitt romney stands on his tax plan. here is a headline coming to us. in the fog of numbers, there is little tax clarity from obama and romney. $5 trillion, whether or not tax cuts will equal $5 trillion. there is a difference in this number. guest: the $5 trillion is the
gross cost of reducing rates 20% across the board. the. gov. romney made is it is unfair to call it a tax cut because he intends to offset the cost through base broadening. i think one thing that was interesting is although gov. romney has proposed 20%, he did not actually mentioned that number in the debate. i think what he did emphasize instead is he was not going to add to the deficit or increase taxes on the middle class. analyses has been done that shows it is a little bit difficult to keep those while cutting the rate by 20%. the decision not to mention the 20% number suggests that is where he will likely adjust his plan. he will stick with this plan of not raising taxes on the middle- class or adding to the deficit. host: let's hear what gov. romney had to say in his own
words. >> i am not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. i said i would not put a tax cut in place that adds to the deficit. no economist can say mitt romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion. number two, i will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. i know you and your running mate keep saying that and i know it is a popular thing to say, but that is not the case. i have five boys. i am used to people saying something that is not true but keep on repeating it and hoping i will believe it. that is not the case. i will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income americans. i will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle income families. you cite a study. there are six other studies that look at the study cited and say it is wrong. i saw a study that came out today that said you are going to raise taxes on middle income
families. host: that is gov. romney at once the's debate. guest: what gov. romney proposed is to reduce rates across the board by 20%. then he says he will get rid of enough deductions, credits, etc. to make a deficit neutral. if you actually run the numbers, which we have, if you take away every single tax break high- income people get, they still are better off with a rate reduction of 20%. the rate reduction is worth more to them that all of the deductions they get. if he sticks with the 20% rate reduction, high income people will see their taxes go down. if he will make his plan deficit neutral, he will have to raise taxes somewhere else. host: let's look at details of mitt romney's plan.
he is calling for a permanent across-the-board 20% cut in marginal rates. it also maintains current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains. eliminating taxes on adjusted gross income below $200,000. he would eliminate the estate tax and repeal the amt. jump into some of the other mentions for guest: us repealing the alternative minimum tax is something economists would like. it is a parallel tax system. in principle every american has to compute their taxes two ways. they have to pay whichever amount is higher. it does not really make sense to have two separate income-tax systems side by side. the goal of the amt was to take away some of the unjustified loopholes. there are a couple of problems with that. if they really are unjustified,
they should be taken out of the regular system. not set up with a separate system. the other thing is the selection where the provisions are removed does not line up with what most people would consider to be loopholes. the exemption you get for each of your children is taken away for your amt. large families are more likely to end up on that system. most people would not consider that a loophole. i think the idea of repealing the amt is something a lot of economists support. it will be a step forward if he can achieve the goal. host: what do you see as the big picture from the ballot. we shared? guest: 1 romney has said is he will not touch the biggest preference that high-income people dead. that is the preferential rate, the lower tax rate on capital gains and dividends. we have estimated that if you
repealed that role it would raise almost $500 billion over 10 years. that could make his plan work. he said he will not touch that particular preference. on the alternative minimum tax i would like to point out on mitt romney's on return he paid about six and a $75,000 on alternative minimum tax in 2011. he had an effective rate of 14%. if repealed his effective rate would have been less than 10%. host: here is a story from bloomberg news. it says on taxes, mitt romney as long on promises and short on details. you can do that he says by capping the value of tax breaks available to the individual
taxpayer. his tax plan what up and financial planning for millions of middle-class households. guest: whether that is the right way to limit these tax preferences, i think it can be debated back and forth. host: tell us what a $17,000 cap means. what guest: does it:it does not affect 70% of taxpayers. those and to be lower and middle income taxpayers. it would affect some of the 30% who itemize their deductions. the proposal or the option or what ever you want to college, i am not certain how they have labeled it, what it would say -- what you want to call it -- the governor rick -- referred to it rejects some uncertainty there. you could claim the deduction of
up to that amount. if you had deductions over that, it would be gone. for upper income people if you want a $17,000 cap, a lot of the population would see their deductions captain and would not claim all of them. most people below that would, but not all of them. -- host: host: there are still details about how would is pending. we have not heard about how the former governor would balance the details. what are we waiting to hear? guest: what deductions, exclusions, and credits would he get rid of to pay for the rate reduction? that is why people have had a tough time analyzing his plan and seeing how it affects the
poor people. host: -- how it affects all people. host: is that a fair assessment? guest: it is. it is a step forward in that he is talking about the capitalize deductions even though it is not a full-fledged proposal and the values seems to be up in the year. romney is rightly of knowledge in that to do serious base broadening you just cannot try to curtail loophole" -- "loopholes," but you do need to find a way to limit the ones that people use. whether putting the dollar cap on there is the right way to go can be questioned. he has put forth a proposal with a lot of good features to it. he would limit the tax savings for itemized deductions for people with incomes above two
wandered $50,000 and even if your it in a bracket higher than 28% you can only reduce by 28 cents on every $1 you spend more money on it, mortgage interest, charitable contribution, state and local taxes. that is one way to limit those preferences. there are pros and cons to different ways of limiting it. in both cases, i think both candidates have stepped forward to say it would be beneficial to try and scale back on some of these. host: digging in to the tax policies and plans of president obama and governor romney. if you would like to get involved in the discussion, here are the numbers for you to call.
our guests are alan viard and rebecca wilkins. carl, on our democrats line. caller: good morning, libby. i like to direct this to the gentleman. wednesday night, he talked about his economic policies and i think the gentleman from aei understands. basically he will not lower the amount that wealthy people will be paying their taxes. they want to eliminate the inheritance tax and the corporate gains taxes. that will lower their rates also. this thing he is trying to do is like a switch and bait talking
about widening the base. that's a gimmick to cover-up that they're going to try to make sure that the wealthier keeping all the money they have made over the last 30 years. host: all right, caller. let's direct that to alan viard. guest: i'm not sure statements like "lies" are not constructive for president obama or ronny. the directly do have a benefit on high-income people, certainly the estate tax. the tax cuts do go to all income groups. romney is proposing to provide reductions through those means. his statements that he would not lower taxes on the rich is,
as i understand it, a statement about his base broadening and 20% reduction plan but that component of the proposal would not lower taxes paid by the wealthy. clearly, that's an objective that can be obtained if rate reduction is scaled back from 20%. given that governor romney conspicuously did not mention that number during the debate, there is some degree of flexibility on that. that's how one interprets what i heard that the debate. host: republican line, mike, from pennsylvania. listening tobeen why don't know how many different people running their jaws. to me, if you ask me, nothing is balanced. the economy is not balanced.
they're trying to keep taxes at when a minimum wage was $3.45 per hour. the gas rates have shot up, and we have minimum-wage going up, but everyone is trying to push taxes and that will not balance our economy. we could even go deeper. people to say we should just borrow more money. nothing is balanced. host: where are you calling from in pennsylvania? caller: near erie. host: let's get a response. guest: it's an issue that neither candidate has addressed. neither one of them has proposed to pay for their tax cut. people really concerned about the deficit and concern about
the long-term debt have to be thinking about where we're going to go when the extension of the bush tax cuts will cost about $5 trillion vs obama's plan which does not extend the bush tax cuts for the top 2% and still cost $4 trillion many ad in the debt service costs. no one has proposed a way to pay for those. guest: that's absolutely right. neither can did it as a serious plan to address the long-term fiscal imbalance and this will need to be addressed. as soon as possible, we do need to adopt legislation that will phase in deficit reduction as we go forward. that will need to include cutting back on entitlement spending and increases in taxes. we do not see that from the candidates. host: off of twitter.
-- let's hear from president obama from wednesday night's debate. [video clip] >> my tax plan has lowered taxes for 98% of families, but i also lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times. what i want to do is continue the tax rates, the tax cuts we put into place for small businesses and families, but i have said for incomes over $250,000 per year that we should go back to the rates we had when bill clinton was president creating 23 million new jobs and creating more millionaires to boot. we can not only reduce the deficit, encourage job growth through small businesses that we're able to make the investments that are necessary in indication our energy. host: president obama wednesday
night at the first debate. alan viard. guest: there are a few things i would take issue with. the bush tax cut to expire for the high income levels and we would be going back to the rate prevailed under president clinton. that is not quite right. there will be a new tax called the unearned medicare income tax will impose an extra 3.8% on interest, dividends, and capital gains. that will be 3.8% higher than clinton tax rates. there will also be a medicare tax will increase. i think that 18 numbers right for cutting taxes on small businesses. republicans have made a tactical mistake when they tried to market this on the ground that they are for small business.
the goal of the tax cut is to remove distortions in the economy, but when you focus on its specifically being for small business, you leave yourself completely open to the response that they have made. if your goal is to cut taxes, a dog specific, targeted tax cuts for small business. that is what they have done and some of these provisions are incredibly complex, incredibly narrow. but there are dozens and dozens of on provisions and both parties have supported it. they're ultimately at fault for having made the small business argument when they should be talking about removing distortions throughout the economy. host: alan viard is a scholar at the american enterprise institute and our other guest is rebecca wilkins with citizens
for tax justice. what is your take on the president's comments? guest: alan is right. a lot of these provisions make it incredibly complex. everyone talks about how we need to simplify the tax code and we need to stop trying to do so many things in the tax code. a lot of things to be better done in direct spending. a great example is the research and experimentation credit that everyone thinks is a fabulous idea. president obama has, in his corporate tax free-market, propose to expand that and governor romney has proposed to make it permanent. it's one area that is just ripe for abuse. when you put a special provision in the code, people do all sorts of crazy things to qualify for that special tax break and things that would never get funding as a research project,
but people find a way to take a tax break. they take on the amended return. some accountants came in and said, i think you could have qualified for the research credit on this. mcdonald's claims it for its special sauce. those kinds of things really do not belong in the tax code. host: with you go to find governor romney's tax plan? is it on his website? guest: i believe it is. the details have not been specified in trying to terms -- on the terms of base broadening, we only have three clues. he was overheard commenting to supporters that which he would look at the mortgage interest deduction for second homes which is trivial and the state and local tax deduction. the most recent was a cap on
the itemize deductions. the other components are making the 2001 tax cuts permanent for everyone and lowering corporate tax rates. i believe that is all on the ronny web site. host: fred joins us on our independent line. caller: when obama said you did not build that, i see his point. we'll make use of services, roads, protection. i think the trouble was he was a little enthusiastic about it. perhaps it if he was talking to an audience of small businessmen, it would have been dampened down. after running a small business to take -- pay their taxes, i think it's separation general electric's still does not. host: rebecca wilkins? guest: citizens for tax justice
with our sister organization, we do a study of corporate tax rates and we do that by going file andhe 10k's they we look at what they're reporting to shareholders and paying taxes. 280 of the fortune 500 companies ended up in our study. the one to did not were not profitable for the three-year period we were looking at. the average rate corporations were paying was only 18.5%, barely half of the statutory rate. 78 companies had at least one year in the three-year period that did not pay taxes at all and 30 companies that did not pay taxes in all three years. general electric was one of them. collectively, those 30
companies had billions in profits yet they paid no federal income tax. when romney says things like 47% of people don't pay income tax, besides the problems with that remark, there are a lot of corporations and very wealthy people not paying income tax, the irs publishes statistics on income each year and a look at the top 400 taxpayers with the highest income. six of them in 2009 did not pay any federal income tax. host: go ahead. guest: this highlight some real problems. it is taxed at the stockholder level as well. even where no taxes are being paid by the corporation, taxes still being collected at the stockholder level. nonetheless, there's a problem because you have companies
making the same amount of income with different taxes being imposed. corporate taxes are really broken and something needs to be done. most economists would agree that it does not make sense to have a separate tax on corporations. it is the most honest and open to have that income tax at the individual level. there are some challenges on how to do that, to be fair, but that's probably the direction we need to go in. host: richardson, texas, on our democrats line. caller: i have a comment and a question. which president would you be? would you be the one who tells no lies and save 47% of the people have no rights to be included in the tax
conversation? i am one of those people who were the long-term unemployed. unemployed for three years. i'm married with a wife and son. i just graduated from the state program here in texas which was sponsored by the president. i just graduated two weeks ago, ok? four days ago i just got a job. i'm 49. i discarded work about a week and half ago. now i'm working again after three years. the night that i heard mr. romney's comments about the 47% on msnbc, i almost fell out of my chair. i'm going to school every night for almost two years in the hopes of trying to improve my family's life, you know?
and obviously that would help the economy. those comments? this is a window into our life. i'm a democrat. i will probably vote for the president, but i like mitt romney. i think he's a good guy. which president would he be? which one would he be? is he going to be the one who said it's probably not $5 trillion, but it's pretty close? i think rebecca would agree. i think when he flips to people like me coming on my television screen in my living room, i do not know who this man is. now he apologizes for the 47%? the media does not even talk about it. like i said, i think he's a good guy, but on the face, he seems
like a clear a liar in the face of the american people. host: let's go to alan viard. does romney have a problem explaining his tax policy and getting clarity on his vision and not have it stuck in the political fray? guest: i think governor romney did say a few days ago that his remarks on the 47% were a mistake and i would agree with that characterization. the callers experience demonstrates all the struggles you can have that may cause them for some time or another to not be paying taxes for legitimate reasons because of circumstances. i do not agree that the medium has not covered it. they covered those remarks and they did their job. on the $5 trillion, i do not think i would agree and i do not think anyone should agree that
the net tax cut would be $5 trillion. the cost will be offset and he seems to now be showing flexibility on whether the 20% number will hold which i did it makes it feasible. host: rebecca wilkins. aest: i've got to talk about 47%. 47% of americans do not pay taxes. the truth is that everybody pays taxes. they pay all kinds of taxes. sales, property, state and local, federal. in the most recent year we have numbers for come up 47% of people did not pay federal income taxes, but over half of them paid payroll taxes. if you look at the people who did not pay either federal income or payroll, that's only 18% of the population. 60% of those people are elderly. we give them a break by not
taxing their social security and come unless they have a lot of other income as well. if you look at the tax system as a whole, it's basically flat. people in the state of washington, the bottom 20% a 17% while the top only pays about 2%. the federal income-tax system barely makes up for how regressive other types are. everyone pays taxes. host: on twitter -- did you would like to share your opinion, you can write to @cspanwj. let's look at more details from president obama's plan for individual taxes.
he would keep tax rates for people making less than $250,000 for the way they are. raise the top income bracket to 36% and 36.9%. raise taxes on dividends. household over $1 million would pay 30% of income in taxes and raise the estate tax. these numbers are from readers. rebecca wilkins, -- reuters. rebecca wilkins? guest: governor romney wants to extend all the bush tax cuts, not just the ones the president wants to extend. he wants to get rid of the estate tax and president obama wants to keep it. he wants to make it a little more robust than it is now and get back to the 2009 rates. neither candidate is really addressing the long-term problem.
alan and i have both talked about how much of the extension of the bush tax cut costs. it's enormous. we have not figured out how to pay for them. host: rebecca wilkins is the senior tax policy counsel at citizens for tax justice. alan viard from american enterprise institute. guest: there is a dramatic increase in dividend taxation under the president's proposal. currently it is 15%. it would go back to ordinary income treatment under the president's proposal. and then a 3.8 percentage which would be a tripling of dividend taxes even though they are paid in income and it has already been taxed at the corporate level. there are a number of reasons that the firm plays taxes --
pays taxes, i think that's a big change. the flaw in the president's approach, he is proceeding with the premise that raising taxes on the top 2% will be efficient to close the long term deficit. people who support raising taxes on that group know you have to go past it. paul krugman would support raising taxes at that level, but he knows there has to be more done. we will have to have one increase on top of another undermining to save. if we do not cut entitlement spending we will continue to face this long term fiscal imbalance. i would be less concerned about raising these rate to two were part of a comprehensive plan that actually did bring down the deficit. the rates were higher, but the budget came into surplus because
of a democratic president and republican congress were able to work together. host: pa. on our republicans line. caller: good morning. how are you? i have been here for 55 about -- 55 or 56 years. i was poor, too. the government did not give me anything to live my life. i had to earn my own. the only way you're going to get ahead in this country is to go out on your own. do not depend on the government because the rich, like me, we will take our money out. host: what do think about the
tax plans? caller: for me, i will not be voting for anybody anyway. it does not mean anything to me. it is unnecessary. put a flat tax and get rid of it. host: flat tax. rebecca wilkins. guest: state and local taxes are really regressive. if you also have a regressive for flat tax at the federal level, lower and middle-income people will be paying a much higher percentage than higher- income people will. host: a question off of twitter. alan viard. guest: the president's individual tax proposals are pretty well detail. the president has been talking
about this for four years, corporate tax reform. the details are a bit more lacking there. until february, he really had not spell them a thing out about what he would do to try to lower corporate rates while broadening the base. the framework document he released has some information but only part of it is an actual proposals. the rest of the document are just options. you can fault the president for research and lack of detail on the corporate side. other individual proposals have been spelled out fairly completely. host: rebecca wilkins. guest: we would agree with that. we like what he said. we like the profits he proposed. we liked some of the big, broad framework. it was really short on details. again, there were some things we
do not want to see on the code for certain types of activities. you get people playing all kinds of games to get their preferential treatment. host: from connecticut on our independent color line. caller: i believe romney is playing a game with his tax plan as he announced it in the last debate. he says he's going to cut taxes on everybody. i'm talking about the wealthy. he is going to cut taxes. then he talks about how he is going to limit deductions. he talked about that very strongly how that would be an offset to it. the to talk about that all he wants, but to me that's a big game. he knows this would never get through congress. you cannot just take it and say that this is the tax plan he's
proposing if he is president with republicans having what they have in congress and especially if he is elected that any plan he has to limit deductions for the wealthy would never, ever pass in congress. he's playing games. he's lying to the american people. host: let's get a response from rebecca wilkins. guest: it's difficult when you talk about getting rid of deductions, exclusions, and credits. there is always a constituency for that. the mortgage interest deduction, for example. not only do homeowners want it but the real-estate lobby will work really hard to keep that in play. if they're going to fight to top them, it's easy to agree
get this tax expenditures out of the code. guest: many republicans have said that they do want to lower rates and to base broadening. i do not think there's any ideological objection. the real obstacle is that all of these deductions have different constituencies behind them. rhetoric is unfortunate. a proposal that is difficult to get through congress, on the concorde -- contrary, the point of the campaign is to spell out what you think should be done and, naturally, you have to work within the system designed by the framers. the concern that both of us would have is that governor romney has not spelled out in enough detail on what he has -- on what he would like to see
done. even if there are obstacles. host: "the washington post" took a look at the governor romney plan yesterday, saying "it looks at the shifting burden on taxpayers. the middle class would suffer under republican mitt romney's tax plan." it looks at the average tax changes by income level and how you would be affected, depending on the amount of money you make. you can see the changes there. there is also insert -- information about loopholes. romney said that he would close loopholes and would not provide details. middle-class families were concluded to be suffering under the principle, because the law of deduction would outweigh the benefits of the tax cuts. guest: that is true. when you look at the high income folks, even if you eliminate every single deduction that they
get, if you do not also increase the rates with capital gains and dividends, they will get an average tax cut of $250,000. if you do not, they get an average of $400,000. mathematically, it is not possible. if he sticks with the rate reduction at the top and his promise to make it deficit neutral, he asked to make up the difference somewhere else. -- past to make up the difference a more else. -- has to make up the difference somewhere else. >> -- guest: there are assumptions made about what was off the table, and some of those things could be off the table, but we do not need to delve into that. even if it was possible, mathematically, while waiting for a tax cut on the high end, it is not something that i
think he would actually propose. the center did not conclude that romney would raise taxes on the middle-class, it's simply said that he had a choice to scale back the rate cut to 20%. i guess that the indication we are getting is that the rate cut will be scaled back, which seems like a sensible way to modify the proposal. host: stephanie, highland, california, democratic line. stephanie, good morning. one last tried? we will move on now to allen, texas, on our republicans line. good morning. caller: good morning. i heard something earlier in the program and once again just moments ago about capital gains taxes. there are a whole bunch of people in this country that
think we should really put the hammer on capital gains tax people. i would like to mention just one little thing. capital gains applies to buying an asset and holding it for a year, then selling it. how about a tax in which to buy an asset and essentially hold it for a couple of years and you do not pay any tax up to $500,000 capital gain. i never hear that mentioned. host: alan viard? guest: i think he is talking about owner occupied homes, where we do tax the capital gains. provided you have lived in the home for two years. there really is a zeal to tax
capital gains, so why not that? there are capital gains on some sales, and part of that does reflect the earnings of the corporation that they have received and generally pay tax on. just as with dividends, you have a double tax issue. the best way to describe that would be the corporate tax. of all the complexities and inefficiencies in how it is applied, it is taxed aggressively at the individual level. as long as there is a corporate tax in place, even though there are some who are not paying, it is a mistake to say that it should not be fully taxed. differences do arise with things like capital gains, but if you want to talk about double taxing capital gains, you are putting a penalty on investment and
encouraging corporations to issue debt and make the economy more fragile. host: rebecca wilkins? guest: capital gains are traditionally earned by very wealthy people. 70% of what was reported in the most recent years was earned by the top 1%. when you have such a much lower rate, you get people playing a lot of games to try to make sure that they fit within the exclusion. that rate differential is what drives a lot of tax shelters and the crazy things that people are doing. from a fairness perspective, if you have two tax payers with the same amount of income and one person's income is from work and the other is from investment, that person who works for a living is going to pay twice as much federal income tax as the person whose income is from
investments. depending on the level of income, like someone who makes $60,000 or $60 million, the folks that live -- work for a living will pay twice as much and payroll taxes on top of that. i think that a lot of people do not think that is fair. host: our guest is rebecca wilkins. we are also joined by alan viard. we are talking about the tax plans of president obama and candidate romney. extending the bush tax cuts, what is the cost for the richest 1% and the rest of the 99%? guest: it will cost about $5.50 trillion over 10 years. the president obama planned to not extend the bush tax cut on income over $250,000 only saves
about $1 trillion. host: you are nodding your head. guest: a lot of people do not recognize what is in play. the bush tax cuts went to the top 2%, 3%. they received trillionths, depending on how you count the numbers. both candidates are proposing to extend both of those tax cuts. it will be difficult to do that unless semiserious plan to control entitlement spending. the president certainly does not have that. i think it is an open question how serious governor romney is about that. there was talk of an increase in proposed medicare spending over the next decade, which is not exactly a step towards fiscal responsibility. host of these comments --
-- host: these comments from twitter -- host: rosalie, conn., independent caller line. hello. caller: good morning. my question already got discussed by two callers that came in. and by the people on tv. but my question was also about capital gains. i want to know the rationale for the 16% on capital gains when my observation is that most people with capital gains are wealthier people. you guys have already had a stated that. in addition to that, what president put that into law? why not, if it was not for the benefit of the constituents? guest: first of all, the capital
gains preference dates back throughout the entire history of the income tax. there were a couple of years in the late 1980's where they were taxed. as far as the history of income tax, and for capital gains on corporate stocks, the evidence is compelling that this is in come at the corporate level. to tax it again at the individual level, it puts a penalty and corporations for issuing stock instead of debt. it would be a mistake to keep it in place. i think that the same point applies to dividends as well. capital gains also apply to land. one point to keep in mind there is that you cannot push the rating too high. people become reluctant to sell their assets. you are not taxed until the
asset is sold. there is an upper limit to how far you can push it. but you could still hit 14% with more revenue. host: -- guest: some have indicated that the rate is around 28%, where would not affect what people decided to sell. on the corporate tax question, general electric has paid billions of dollars in dividends over the last 10 years, yet the federal income tax rate has been 1.8%. it is hard to argue that that doubles taxation. host of democratic line, bill, massachusetts. caller: i have a question. -- host: democratic line, bill, massachusetts. caller: i have a question. we had a huge stock market crash in 1987 and a tremendous recession in the northeast.
the fdic took banks all over the region. president george herbert walker bush back in 1990 raised taxes from 28% to 31% and put a phase out on deductions. it started to stabilize the economy. my question for alan viard, governor romney says he will raise the rates by 20%. if someone is saying 30% is worth ordinary income, they would be paying $280,000. that is a 70 -- $780,000 cut. if i divide that .28, that comes to $250,000. where is he going to eliminate that for that taxpayer? guest: we have gone over this several times here. we have found it is difficult to
do that, and scaling back their rates. the expected failure to manage that number during the debate, that is the area he seems to want to perceive, scaling back that production. host: this twitter message says -- guest: well, i think that whatever changes we do should be down the road and there should not be any big hits to the economy now. i think that the previous caller was right in pointing out that tarates do not seem to have any correlation with economic growth, albeit capital gains or ordinary income. if you look over a long time, not just in our country, there is no correlation between tax rates and economic growth. making the argument that you can
reduce rates and get more revenue because the economy is going to grow very well does not add up. guest: i would think that the evidence reads differently. when supply response to tax rates, we have evidence that savings respond to tax rates. people show a tightening of consumption over the lifetime. it is a fact that tax cuts are not revenue increasing. you actually raise more revenue when you reduce taxes. the growth that you get gives you a partial revenue feedback. in order to make it a viable strategy, it has to be done by reductions in spending. host: thank you both for taking us through the candidates' tax
plans. alan viard, rebecca wilkins, thanks so much to you. coming up next, political junkie can rubin -- ken rudin joins us for the house and senate races in fly in 2012. then, a look at syria with stephen flanagan. join us this weekend on both tv and american history tv as we explore the capital city of maine, a gust up. here's a preview. [video clip] >> they were a poor fishing community, no different from many in the area. it is just that to me the thing that set them apart was that they were mixed race. they were black. they were white. they were mulatto. that is what the focus was on.
>> today we are standing at the fragmented lies exhibit. we decided to exhibit it this year because this is the centennial of the community that lives there now. the island is still a very small island off the coast, but in the early 1860's a small mixed-race community lived there, african- americans and whites married, living together, setting up home on the island. in 1912 the state of maine evicted them and no one has lived there since. most of the people were descendants of one african- american man. he bought it with his own money in the 79 these. >> with his own money. 15 pounds. -- 79 the's. >> with his own money. 15 -- 79 d -- 1790's.
>> 15 pounds. with his own money. >> it was a very fluid island. if you talk to the people who do the census records, people came back and forth. at its height there were 48 people living there at one time. roughly 30 to 40 people. the eviction is a complicated story. i tend to look at the community as a community that was in the wrong place at the wrong time. host: augusta, maine, weekend on book tv and american history tv. you can catch more of that program tonight on c-span. our npr political junkie, ken rudin, joins us now to talk
about camping 2012 and the other races besides the presidential race. first of all, are the house and senate by and play? guest: absolutely. the numbers are fairly small. the democrats need a net gain of 25 house seats. once again in the senate they are looking for a fourth senate seat to put them in the majority and make mitch mcconnell the majority leader. both are likely and not likely. host: why are they not likely? guest: on the republican side, the numbers favor them in houses held by democrats, so you would think that numerically they would have a shot, but republicans have problems of their own. in maine, olympia snowe is retiring. scott brown is no better than even in massachusetts.
other states where there were hoping to pick up north dakota, missouri, the candidates faltered. the numbers are not so good there. on the house side, democrats need 25, but they have a bunch of vulnerable incumbents. the number of seats where democrats are retiring could cause republicans to pick up as well. host: you were in missouri last week. what did you hear about the senate race? guest a once upon a time, claire mccaskill was the most democrats -- most vulnerable democrat, if not the most vulnerable incumbent. she had been very close with barack obama, and he was very unpopular in the state. and she had this controversy where there was an airplane
owned by her family that was being written off for tax reasons. then came the republican primary and taught a can, he won in the primary somehow, though thought to be the weakest. then he had this unfortunate comment about how legitimate rate is not likely to cause pregnancy -- rape is not likely to cause pregnancy, becoming fodder for late-night comedians and giving heartburn to republicans across the nation. but he has not gone away. outside kansas city and st. louis, he remains very popular with evangelical voters. the race is not a done deal. some republicans are thinking that if it is doable, maybe we do come back and put in some money. right now clare mccaskill is out-spending him 10-1.
host: let's take a look at this claire mccaskill campaign ad. >> he said he did not like social security. he said medicare was unconstitutional. on the 16th of march, he said he wants to abolish the minimum wage. on april 21 he said he would eliminate student loans. on august 19, he said that only some rapes are legitimate. what will he say next? host: claire mccaskill campaign ad, quoting him, but not actually playing his audio. what do you make of ads like this? guest: there is no reason to play it, everyone knows it. some republicans have said that he made a mistake and spoke at a turn and that he did not mean it. the democrats said that he did mean it and that is his feeling
about pregnancy. we also talked about abortions performed on women who are not pregnant. lots of controversial things. democrats say that this is exactly the guy they want to run against. then there are those who firmly believed in taught taken and people who say that their mccaskill does not represent missouri. guest of this is from " me -- host of this is from "the new york times." host: what are the national implications of this race? guest: if you talk about people like roy blunt, the senator from missouri, and others like that, former republican senators, they say that whenever he might have said, and he does say a lot, we need a majority of we can get them. if they can deal with the embarrassment of aligning
themselves with him, will it ruboff on other republican candidates who might return? or do they say -- look, we need four seats and missouri has to be one of them. some say they need the state to win to get the majority, but they have to sell a lot of principles to do that. host: let's take a look at a taught a can campaign advertisement. -- todd aiken. campaign advertisement. [video clip] >> when she gives us excuses, just remember this. claire mccaskill, getting rich off of us. host: an advertisement from missouri. let's go to the
phones and get the callers involved.
this is jim in waterbury, connecticut. good morning. go ahead. caller: linda mcmahon it said that chris murphy was not there in congress 90% of the time to make votes on issues. is that a fair accusation? is that just sort of how congress works that -- works now? guest: beat -- host: before we let you go, what is it like there in connecticut now? guest: last time she really bombarded you. it is a pretty bad race, a lot of mudslinging. host: ken rudin? guest: this is a state that they have no business being competitive
in. the former chief executive of
the world wrestling federation, linda mcmahon, spent $50 million in a big republican year and lost still by 12 points. she got some sort of complete makeover this year? or she is warm and folksy? she is taking chris murphy as someone who is out of touch. i still think that he has a slight lead, but the polls show them as dead even. democrats should definitely worry. this is the one where joe lieberman is retiring. host: new york, trevor, republican. caller: good morning. i was thinking, is and congress almost powerless? what is the point of voting for these people? obama has these executive orders to disregard the will of the congress, so what is to be done?
could guest: as far as whether anything gets accomplished -- that is a good point. if u.s. the republicans, they say that president obama will not work with them. what does it matter? theoretically, you do not need a majority anymore. it used to be that 51 seats controls the senate. no one does that anymore, you need 60 seats. we also saw in 2009, when they had 60 seats, they could still not get their act together on health care and things like that. before they turned around, scott brown won the massachusetts seat. to i expect anything to get done in the next cycle? no matter who is president? host: there is a very low approval rating of congress, a very high dissatisfaction level. what does that mean, from
district to district? guest: perhaps one of the reasons that linda mcmahon is doing so well is because chris murphy is a part of that congress that gets like 12% approval ratings. that is enough for those people who give them that approval rating. it is unfortunate and ugly. our profession is in congress, getting things done to work for the people. a lot of voters are just tired of it. host: c-span will be airing a debate between those senate candidates, linda mcmahon and chris murphy, today. boston, massachusetts. hello, kevin. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: why are the republican congress so disrespectful to the
american people and the democratic party? if they represent us like that? that is ridiculous. we cannot have a president coming in like mitt romney. russia, other countries, they are really looking at this situation like it is a joke. host: what is your take on the senate race in massachusetts? guest: it seems like the lady -- caller: it seems like that lady really cares about people. host: all right. guest: this is another state where republicans have no business being competitive. scott brown won that special election in 2010 not -- in 2010.
he it was very folksy and strong with independent voters. he has not been so much a republican as a scott brown republican. he is not talking about party support or even mentioning that dirty word, mitt romney. he is trying to focus on elizabeth warren and the deficiency in her character. elizabeth warren seems to have opened up a slight lead since the democratic convention, but it will go down to the wire. host: this is a scott brown campaign advertisement. [video clip] >> elizabeth warren is a minority, because she said so. >> initially she said she did not know anything about it. >> she kept covering up. >> she got caught. >> you have to come clean when
you are caught. >> this should affect voters and how they feel about elizabeth warren. >> they will say anything in washington. >> getting a sense of the tone. we are also seeing more from the debate between elizabeth warren and scott brown. he was asked in a lightning round by the moderator who his favorite supreme court justice -- justice was, and he hesitated before saying and and and scalia. guest: which goes over great in massachusetts. almost immediately after realizing that, he also said john roberts. he said he is an independent and does not have to stick with one or the other, but anyone who puts them on the same list of favorites is either fooling themselves or trying to appeal
to a broad spectrum of the electorate. host: let's go to lebron in new jersey, independent line. caller: i have a question and a comment. i am from new jersey and am curious about the ohio race. i cannot see why he is even competitive. why would he be competitive against jerry brown? also, the connecticut races and massachusetts races, those baffle me. why would be competitive? seems like it is contradicting each other. i do not understand that. especially with scott brown. he seems to me like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
he will vote lockstep with mitch mcconnell. why would massachusetts even consider someone like him? another example, mitt romney is going to win montana. many people will vote for him, so why would you vote for democrats in the senate. confirming his independence in the state of massachusetts. mccaskill is trying to distance herself from obama in missouri. coattails' do not make the same difference as they did in the past. they try to difference themselves.
host: here is a story from "the plain dealer" in ohio. guest: why is he competitive? the answer is money. brown is a very liberal senator elected in 2006. he is baby faced and also the strait -- state treasurer. he was elected statewide. brown still has the lead. maybe six points or seven points, competitive because the has so much money. host: wichita, kan., democratic line. caller: i am really concerned as to when our members of congress are going to step up and address some things, like the drug war that has put many people in prison.
incarcerating our citizens. this horrible drug war, whether we going to start talking about that? it is a brick on the head of so many people who cannot get any benefits after that. it affects them for life. it has not been studied in the united states due to the fda not being allowed to move on it. i have talked to my state representatives and have two members in kansas who are totally pro-legalization and no one else in this country is willing to talk about this strategy. guest: i heard he was a democrat from kansas, i did not realize that there were any. interesting. the thing is, sometimes it comes up in the past, congress talks about the kind of sentencing for
cocaine, things like that, and studies of legalization, but nothing has been set in congress for either party. host: jessica, republican line. caller: i want to know about n.c. and what is going on with that. throwing it out there, what could we possibly do about the profiteering in the senate and the ties to wall that money. would it be possible to have the american people pay taxes? guest: i think she was referring to the gubernatorial race in north carolina. republicans have not won that race in a long time. but pat mccurry, as far as the
money in politics, there seems to be no indication that money is going to disappear from politics or the campaign any time soon. president obama raise $750 million four years ago. there is so much outside money. before one is willing to say that enough is enough. host: ken rudin is our political junkie at npr, contributing to that coverage, running the blog as well. he is the editorial coordinator of the state impact project. our last caller was calling from north carolina. let's go won over to talk about
virginia. we can see it here at the national map. states in yellow are said to be tossups. virginia? guest: you have evenly matched people, tim kane and george allen. both have knocks against them if you live there. so, republicans are saying that he is a tool. george allen has yet to recover from six years ago. he was measuring the drapes for the white house until he had that moment where he disparaged and in the american at one of his rallies and he never recovered. i think that both of them have a lot of tightening in the senate race mirroring the tightness of
the presidential race. it seems i what i have seen over the last couple of weeks, tim kane seems to have opened up a slight lead over georgia and if the republicans win control, no one wins control. they may not do that unless cain has a slight lead. host: john, georgia. caller: good morning. the georgia house race, they have people in that district, it is a large district. guest: there is still a pretty sizable lead.
one congressional seat they're looking at is john perrot. the only white democrat in the house in the deep south that is left. it is so remarkable, given the fact that a couple of generations ago, there were no republicans. the redistricting has hurt him severely in 2012. host: a georgia congressman made news this weekend, calling evolution and the big bang allies. he made these remarks in a video tape comment. meant to convince people that they do not need a savior. this was from the sportsmen's banquet at liberty baptist church.
he is a medical doctor running for reelection. running unopposed. will these comments reverberate? guest to we have seen incendiary comments in the past. unless they are in competitive races, people seem to hear it and move on. host: st. petersburg, florida, democratic caller. caller: in florida we know what it is like to be ruled by a one- party state. of course, the voter suppression here. my comment is this. we know that the house will be
republican, that is pretty sure. i would advise people concerned about one party government, we have had a republican party for 10 years dominated in the democratic and the senate, knowing that the supreme court is on the edge. do not vote for that as much as for the party, because party control has become everything. guest: i would say vote for the person, not the party. if you are a democrat and you want democratic control, certainly in florida your choices are bill nelson, who is running for another term. bill nelson has really done nothing wrong. moderates would have loved to
have beaten him. he does not seem to have got the momentum needed to do it. host: one of the most contentious in the florida house race, from roll-call, alan west. over democrat patrick murphy, it is a close race. let's take a look at a campaign advertisement from patrick murphy. [video clip] >> who is the real alan west? of his bill says that all abortion is illegal, even in cases of rape and incest. he voted against life-saving monograms. how does he really feel about women? >> they bring us to a point of incredible weakness.
>> radical views, wrong for women. guest: he is certainly a lightning rod. he is in league with the party. love him or hate him, people do both. he is from palm beach and has raised a ton of money. like $11 billion. taxes,n, women's rights, it has got very personal. patrick murphy said, as many people remember, he was arrested for being publicly intoxicated. he shot a gun near the ear of an iraqi that he was interrogating and could have been court-
martialed. messy, ugly. they would love to beat him, but it is majority republican district. host a live look at one of those advertisements. [-- host: lets have a look at those advertisements. [video clip] >> patrick murphy, unable to stand. he confronts and verbal assaults a police officer. verbally -- he was arrested and taken to jail. the country in crisis? you decide. host: you saw it -- you were talking about a nasty tone. where else are you seeing that? how else are voters responding to it? guest: everyone says that they
hate-advertisements, but it seems like they work. if you live in a swing state, served in the presidential race, you are constantly bombarded by anti-mitt romney anti-obama advertisements. it is too late for feel good advertisements. with 30 days to go, basically you tear down your opponent as much as it can. host: randy, citrus heights, republican line. caller: i would write a check for on west. and did not want to disagree with something project wanted to disagree with something your guest said earlier. democrats were talking about the viability of josh mandel, and he
said the money was the difference. i have to disagree. for the same reason that they can still have a chance in missouri. brown, mccaskill, they voted for obama care. as much as they would like to finish the it -- think they're finished paying for that, they are not done getting slapped around for that. the memories are still there. people look at that stuff and if you voted for that, your day will come. host: have you given money to campaigns? you do not have to give specifics, but have you voted with your wallet? guest: yes -- caller: yes, i do
give money to the party. i have given money to the romney campaign. pictures from the convention, is as though your friends send you some pictures. of course, it is kind of overwhelming. almost like a solicitation every day. guest: it is not just money, it is not just lack of money. there is strong sentiment for these great republican victories in the senate and house. 63 house seats. because of the antipathy of the affordable care act in what could mean for small businesses
down the line, it is important to say that he is doing what he is. if claire mccaskill had been running in 2010, it could have gone down with other democrats as more of a measured election in 2012. 2006, 2008, because of prices and bush, the economy, 2010, 2012, anti-democratic, 2012 seemed to be mixed for both sides. very possibly a mixed message coming on the sixth. host: independent line, good morning.
some of these districts -- caller: some of these districts sound almost safe. being born brown or black, to the chagrin of your callers. host: i did not get that last part. caller: 50% of those under 18 born in the united states are non-white. the changing demographics, will that change some of these districts? guest: it will certainly have an effect on gerrymandering. the democrats did a great job of hurting republicans in illinois. most of the gains will be in states like illinois. in ohio and pennsylvania, they
will do well there. as far as changing demographics, that is a salient point. for all intents and purposes, once upon a time a long time ago it has solved the problem in the senate race there. the numbers of the latino population are increasing rapidly. texas, florida, states like that. they write off the latino population at their own peril. right now during the republican presidential debate we heard the rhetoric there. they do not seem to realize the country is not changing. host: jim, you are a ken rudin
on with, the npr political junkie. go ahead. caller: i enjoy your comments and enjoyed watching you today. jennifer granholm, she is such a wonderful states lady. unfortunately, she cannot run for president. that is a really unfortunate coincidence. but she has done so much for michigan. when she was such a big part of the structure bailout of the auto industry, and helped michigan and all of those states. what she displayed at the democratic convention was wonderful. it is unfortunate that over all
the republican administrations, we never have this kind of energy displayed to save jobs for the textile industry, where we could have saved those jobs and preserve all of that structure that was there to supply the auto parts and manufacturing. what can we do to get her in a house or senate position in michigan? host: here is the recent step -- recent story on jennifer granholm from cnn. guest: well, let me first of all explain what the caller is talking about, not being president. the former two term governor was born in another country, and you
have to be natural born of the united states to be president. the same reason that arnold schwarzenegger cannot be president. now, jennifer granholm was a popular governor, but she left office with her numbers down. i think republicans took the advantage of her on popularity in michigan -- lack of popularity in michigan. if in the second obama term he is reelected, she may receive a high cabinet position. host: tom joins us from massachusetts now. caller: a few callers ago referred to florida as being ruled by republicans for the last 10 years. the bluest states, the most
liberal states, in massachusetts it was the land of the blue hills. we have had the past three speakers of the house be convicted felons for doing all sorts of wrong things with their power and gaining favor monetarily in the state. the state is so overruled with regulation, bylaws, and taxation, the private-sector is just selling beyond belief. we have things that create problems that are totally unnecessary. the state code is so rigid that no one could build their own house by themselves anymore. it has probably increased by 35% to 40% because of the extra things you have to place in a house, like safe windows and
bracketing. many, many things make it so expensive to live in this state. it is totally unfair to the private sector. guest: taxachussets was thrown out when governor dukakis was running in 1988. as blue a state as it is, three- one democrat over republican, republicans have been elected governor -- mitt romney, the one in the news lately, said it is an overwhelmingly democratic state and legislature. of course, all of that could have been put in as well. it is a very blue state. the fact that scott brown is competitive, the fact that republicans have won there, there are people there who are
tireof democratic rule or want change. host: we will bring you that candidate square off on wednesday night. earlier we mentioned last week's debate between those candidates. let's take a listen right now. [video clip] >> who is your model supreme court justice? >> let me see. i think justice scalia is a good judge. [roaring from crowd] >> justice kennedy is also very good. justice roberts, justice sotomayor, those are qualified people. that is the beauty of being an independent. you can actually look at the advocate. i do not need to pick one. i am proud of the ones you have. >> your favorite, miss warren?
>> elena kagan. host: that is the debate that we saw last week. you mentioned it earlier, the crowd was definitely cheering on and contributing to that atmosphere. guest of the progressive wing of the elizabeth warren well be -- guest: the progressive wing loved elizabeth warren well before this. and scott brown won, he was a hero for the republicans as well. with other canned it -- with him mentioning justice scalia, it reminds me of bill richardson being asked to his favorite supreme court justice was. he said byron white. that is because john f. kennedy appointed him, but he voted against roe vs. wade. sometimes you have to know which you are saying before you answer
a question like that. host: devi, michigan. hello. caller: i have a question about an independent named scott brown. i heard it on one television show and had not been able to verify it. i thought your guests might know. did he train for a change on the bill that switch to the $19 billion cost of implementing this complex thing to be fully recovered wealthy banks to us taxpayers? the other question i had was on -- it seems like the republicans have been able to win, in 2010, the main reason i thought was
because of advertisements taken out of medicare, which my understanding was that it was more waste and was not really anything that affected people on medicare. here they are again. are there any republicans in my state that are going to keep medicare as it is? or are they going to totally change it? guest: we thought it would be a huge issue when paul ryan became the running mate. ultimately, it is still an issue.
this is a risk for the republicans. in the past, senator barack obama clearly defeated john mccain in 2008. he voted for mccain consistently over barack obama. if there is a fear of medicare as we know at, that could be another demographic the republicans have to know about. postal let's go to ken in missouri. .
end up losing by two or are three, so hopefully, come through, but i think all of these republican outliers going start pushing money in and we'll be in republicans have never been the answer, they have always been the problem. >> host: so givings that you perspective. >> guest: once upon a time a genuine swing state. as you may remember, from 1994 to 2004, but as the caller makes a point it has become more republican and become more conservative, mccain only won the tate by
4,000 four year ago, romney expected to win by much more. again tbrsh the akin didn't have these comments that seemed to have dracked them down if he did have the financial support from washington that was promised key have well beaten claire. >> host: one of the colleagues had recent story that said women head for the hills in record numbers. more women are running for congress than ever before. the 18 women running for the senate break the previous record of 14 set two years ago and 163 female candidate for health seat and more than 141 who ran in 2004 how is it looking? they are looking attractive. >> i would never say that. actually what it is is the numbers are very, very positive for women running for the hout and the nate. there are a lot of women running. for example, in several states in california with day
in a feinstein in hawaii with lingo and several states, three states, and new york with christy, gillebrand, wendy long, the most as well, you have tommy baldwin, you have other women around the country who could, you know, increase the female population in the senate. you are losing two of course, olympia snowe is leaving, but more women, more female candidates theoretically will mean another victories in november. >> host: let's go to david. i opened the door. i opened the door. are known for the humor. >> guest: except on c-span. >> host: you can be funny on c-span. david from clinton township c-span. good morning. >> caller: good morning. wanted to say something about jennifer granholm. before she was above more, we
had a republican governor here. during that time was when the economy was really blooming. the automobile industry was doing very well here. and, and, so the governor lowered tax as here in michigan. that is just before the economic downturn, the auto industry went into the toilet, you you know, so the tax revenue dried up in the state. after jennifer granholm had got on that the office. okay. all of the sudden, michigan is now suffering because similar tax rate that's the previous republican governor have put unplace bus at the time, the economy was growing. hen that fell into the toilet then we had a big financial problem. everybody blamed granholm with that and that, that was not the case. she was a real good governor. she was just look the president obama was stuck a real bad situation to have to deal with. and the negative stigma was placed on her just like on the president due to what had
been done before by republican governor here or president in washington. >> host: can you talk about how candidate on the congressional level are using the auto bailout and how they are using the economy as general as points? >> guest: le, he raises a very good point. we are seeing in the presidential raise as well. do we blame george w. bush for the collapse of the economy, co collapse in the street, giving president obama such a mess that he could not make well, do after four years and need another term, same thing in michigan, do you blame john engler, who did cut taxes, and led to huge deficits, tef sits in michigan, and jennifer granholm tried to compensate where she can to save the
economy. but just as romney is trying to run against obama. obama running against george w. bush in michigan, the question was -- do you blame engler or jennifer granholm. now a lot of people, a lot of people who are praising the president's bailout or rescue of the auto industry and perhaps one of the reasons president obama seemed to have a 7 to 8-point lead ohio which is crucial for any candidate because of what he did what obama did to rescue the oil industry. >> host: ken rudin is political editor at npr including the political junky segment that is part of talk of the nation on wednesday and runs the political junky blog which you can find at npr! org. thanks so much, ken rudin for being our fest today. >> thank you. >> host: coming up next, we'll stalk to stephen flan na gn and talk about syria. first the news update from c-span radio.
c-span radio reairs the programs beginning at noon eastern time with nbc's meet the press. today, host david gregory welcomes robert gibbs senior adviser to the obama campaign, also newt gingrich and former california governor arnold schwarzenegger. at 1:00 p.m. here abc's this week reaired and another appearance by robert gibbs of the obama campaign also on the program ed gillespie senior advisor though romney campaign and bill o'reilly and author of the new booking with killing kennedys "at 2:00 p.m., fox news studded sunday reairs with host wallace. and debate coach brett o'donnell also maryland democratic governor martin he mali. cnn state of the union repair airs at 3:00 p.m. eastern time and welcomes ohio attorney den are and former democratic governor ted strickland and the former director of the
congregational office. chief economists at moody's analytics. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, bob schieffer host of cbs's face the nation talks with david axelrod senior adviser to the obama campaign. the sunday network talk shows reairing are brought to you as a public service pay the network and c-span. again those reairs begin at noon eastern with meet the press from nbc, 1:00, this week, at 2:00, fox news sunday, at 3:00, cnn's state of the yun and finally at 4:00 face the nation. listen this them to all in washington, d.c. area. nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 119 you can listen in the pone, the plaque berry, android or iphone or go online to c-span radio! org. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
>> it was called yes, but is it art? i was accused of being a philly stein, someone lacking the sensibility to appreciate the challenging nature of some contemporary art. in those 20 years, works that i questioned worth hundreds of thousands of dollars are now worth hundreds are of millions. so what made everybody so mad. >> i discovered something that i had absolutely could bauerly believe. that when you question someone's taste, it is more personal than politics, religion, sexual preference, it is something that goes to the very soul when you say you bought that? >> 60 minutes morley safer on the career at cbs, walter
cronkite, tonight at 8:00 on c-span's q & a. washington journal continues. >> stephen flanagan is kissinger chair andy plom sy for international studies. thanks for coming in today talk about what is happening in syria. image from the newspaper this morning of a syrian father crying over the body of his son one of dozens killed by suicide bombers last week. amid a civil war this appears stuck in a stalemate. stephen flan na fan, review for us the roots of what is happening sin syria. jim: >> guest: well, robe bell fighting the syrian armed forces have increasingly gained strength syria and the syrian government's own repression using the armed force as we see against the people. it has grown with the, you know, with enormous casualties over 30,000 at various estimates, but that there is even reports that
casualties could be higher and the border, now, what happened in recent weeks as you have seen more and more clashes along the borders even today, another border crossing close to the turkish border in the north of syria has fallen supposedly to the syrian rebels this is leading to the increasing frequency we see this past week of cross border clashes between the turkish and the syrian armed forces. >> host: numbers to call if you would like to join the conversation. republicans and democrats 282-585-3808 and independent callers 202-585-3880 and if you are outside of the united states it is 202-585-3883 another headline from "the new york times." turkey fires back at syria a fourth day in a row. s what the relationship, a past relationship between the leaders of turkey and syria far more friendly so what is happening now? >> guest: you are right. what happened is a sharp detiration of relations as the repression in syria grew.
the turks tried to convince president asad of sir syria to step aside this is not the way to resolve and to exercise more restrain and try to find a political solution to the grievances of the people, but then, to perhaps step aside and when that did not work, the turks became frustrated they have been supporting quite openly politically but many reports in that clandestine ways they have been supporting the rebels through assistance and arms and allowing them to travel across the border quite regularly. what we have seen is short of a had doe war between kurk turkey and sir why at some level happening because the syrians see that the,s, the regime feel these turkish government is heavily alooned against it, so am of this, some of these shell firings across the border which the syrians have said were ac didn'tal may not be at all. they may be designed to send a warning to the turkish government that this could be
he is kala story at some point if they don't back off in the support of the syrian rebels. >> what is the international significance of the conflict between turkey and syria? turkey is a member of nato. >> absolutely. well, that is the biggest international amplication for the united states because, of course, as a charter member of nato. we are oh liked under provisions of the treaty that 27 other members of the alliance have signed to defend turkey if it is attacked by anyone. it is -- it is not professional. it is attack against one. it is attack against all. we have seen consultations also week with regard to the cross-border shelling. earlier in june, there were consultations as well under various treaty to assure the turk that's the alliance would be there to defend them. now on the syrian side, of course, you have the support of the iranian government. there are many reports that iranian revolutionary guard forces are fighting with the syrian armed forces both in
the, in the direct action against citizens in syria, but also, perhaps engaged in terrorist activities in turkey, so you can see this potential nor war to spill out and become really a conflict from being a conflict between the west and syria, between iran and the west more directly with syrian ally. >> host: let's go to the phones to hear from mark he is from brighton, massachusetts, on the independent live. good the morning. >> caller: good morning, yes. i feel this is a dangerous game that the west is playing. this could, as your guest suggest, spill out to a larger conflict with the main player china, russia and the united states. so i think that, you know, clear lithos be appreciated. this could escalate and get out of hand. you know, what is really, this force is made up of is
al qaeda which is being supported by the west, which is kind of ironic, isn't it? so i mean, i think that needs to be pointed out that the west is using al qaeda forces to flood across the board near syria, to wreak holy hell, and that was what the civil war is. >> host: stephen flanagan. >> guest: i believe this is a political spine between russia and eye reason and turkey and the u.s. and others who support the end of the regime, but on the second part, i think it is really not right and ac drit say that most of the rebels are al qaeda. in fact most of the forces are people, mostly suni who object to this minority reg theme has been engaged in this brutal repression in a rule over its whole period of governance. it has shown it has shown once again as assad's father did, now there are foreign fighters there are so-called
jihadis that are coming to the country from rareas areas in the midst of the turmoil but by and large, and i was there a couple of week ago, i met with rep seb tis of and they are all vowing that it is, it is prop gan gada from the syrian government to suggest these are all al qaeda fighters and not in fact completely demoralized and, and now turning to violent citizens of the syrian, the republic. margaret is in kansas on democrat's line. hi, margaret. >> caller: good morning. i have been watching this with extreme unbelievable upsetness. it gets so little coverage. we have some coverage until, you know, journalists are getting killed then i have to watch bbc. i mean, it is ridiculous what is on our news. so i wrote a short poem, i will read it to "crimes against humanity: sins of omission delay and
humanitarian rescues, body counts, mine count, witness to extreme suffering, leadership needed, if not indeed, in words, shouts them loud as the bomb, silence is lee that, syria bleeds to death in public, the hol world feels vulnerable but no one really cares. " and i think thats the feeling that struck me. we are witnessing like-we saw katrina, an absolute apathetic anowe cannot go in with an army but we could go with a red crossarm my, i mean, it just seems like they are expendable. cal host h thank you for the call. let's get a response. >> guest: it is a reminder of what the cost of this continued accumulation of atrocities has led to and what we see is increasingly radicalization in going back the earlier caller. mean, it is true as, even
within sir are, as some of the repressive acts of the g. continue to mount, as the ber national community has proven unable through diplomatic pressure to convince assa do find a political association what you see is increasing within the syrian political body and increasingly we, there were reports just yesterday talking about how they are fed up with the west. they are fed up with some of the supporters that are not providing them with the weapons they need to actually defeat the syrian armed forces. the reports of saudi arabia and other countries in the gulf are trying to help to top the reg um but not providing enough support so they are desperate and increasingly turning to more radical kinds of acts to try to force the regime to end the repression. >> host: an opinion piece in "the washington post" today. 48 hour in syria. the u.s. can make a difference by coordinating outside help to the rebels
and here is how he ends him the u.s. wants this he rebels to coordinate better and should lead the way by coordinating outside help. the cache of weapons cutting from other arab nation is helping extremist fights and undercutting any orderly chain of come man through the free syrian arm ny. he then talks the own varney to jury and back out. he says he left sir are where with a mad dash across 400-yards of a no-man's land accompanied by smugglers. what do you think is his input sneer well, i think he is quite right. he has written before about warning there is a potential for extremists to gain access to weapons. there is a lot of support coming in as i said of that report said and as i said earlier from the gulf states but we also see reports, a separate report. big orie today in the new york times that talked about the fact that the free syrian army was coming plaining to the times reporter that in fact they were finding it, they were unable to get the kinds of weapons that they
need are the saudis and from others through jordan and others and the supply sources that they are ref receiving. so there was, there is a sense that there they are not yet getting the kinds of capabilities to go after aircraft in particular. they want shoulder fired antiaircraft weapons thats could go after syrian, the syrian airports which has been one of the important instruments of repression and one at which the small arms that free syrian army has are not appropriate again but i think this notion of that there are reports, there have been reports that the cia is working with turkish intelligence to insure that some of the weapons that are crossing from the turkish side of the border at least are not reaching the al qaeda and other jihaddist forces but it is a very difficult game. and as david's own story and piece suggest that's the pourous border. there had been before the
conflict. there was vis-a-vis travel. many sir yips came to turkey to go shopping regularly and more modern malls and attract the stores there, so it is, and it remans a fairly pourous border despite the growing military presences on both sides. >> host: here is a story you referenced a ment moment ago. arab allies limit syrian rebel ad. reid is our next caller in new hampshire ob the democrat's line. hi. >> caller: the em was lovely by the lady except for indeeds instead of words. we have seen how words is getting us to a deadlock, stalemate so i am told. it am a little curious, though, this arguing back and forth and back and forth, everybody everywhere knows that arguing has to come to an end and actions have to evolve into something that produces results.
>> do you have a sense of what should be done? do you have a preference? >> well, what should be done? >> i mean, common sense. with arming the rebels, basically, and we got a whole bunch of economic difficulties in our country. we got prisoners everywhere. they should be given the opportunity since you know, the roughest sector of our society, to at least gain doing ty back and prove to us they want to be an american before they get released. give them the opportunity to go through a crash course and go fight for the country. >> host: okay. what are the options on the table? i mean, i heard callers express great frustrations but take us through syria. guest the first option is still one of a diplomatic initiative, i think, you know, we have two failed efforts, first, one led by kofi aman now we have here one that also seems to be struggling under another u.n.
envoy. the problem that is the u.s. and many others had hoped that by working with russia, because of the dependence on russia for a lot of the military equipment and other support that they could convince assa do end the repression if he did not step aside begin to think about a transition. that approved unable. they were not able to sustain that efficient. they argued and continued to side with the syrian line that this is, these are dangerous foreign fighters. this is a terrorist campaign, and that others are provoking this, that the syrian regime is simply trying to defend the sovereignty. the diplomatic course is not promising still, but i think neededs to be renewed commitment to the effort to tri to work the european union and the gulf states to tri to end this because what we have seen now with the potential for the side
withening, widening conflict. the other option is the notion of equipping the syrian army directly. this has been an idea that has been out there for sim time. they have been getting weapons. the u.s. has revided at least openly said it has provided nonlethal support. the turks, some of the gulf state and others provided more lethal support. but still not at the level in which it can be diseasive victory by the free syrian army and the other rebel forces but it is a difficult game because we don't want to see the region turn into a situation, actin to afghanistan, where you have a lingering legacy of these extremist fighters holed up in some of the terrain, that is difficult, mountainous, not as hi as afghanistan but difficult terrain where it is difficult for government forces once you unleash this kind of alaska of ty very difficult on either side to regain control of their territory and to tri to put an tone the fighting then convince the fighters to
either, to give up and pursue some kind of political process, so it is a very difficult game. >> host: stephen flanagan is national security at csif the center for strategic and internationalled disand held that chair since 2007 and also serve on the group of nato special operations headquarters. let's hear now from michael in stat on lay in a on the republican line. >> caller: thank you for listening. >> host: yes, go ahead, michael. >> caller: it is astonishing to me why we don't put the support behind turkey since turkey supported us. i cannot understand why we don't go in, full guns, and support of ally. that is all i have to say. >> guest: well, michael. we actually have -- the united states has strong support for turkey since clinton and their foreign minister in turkey consulted
earlier this week in refons the shelling that cross border shelling into turkey on wednesday. the u.s. strongly supported the meeting of the nato council that reassured turkey that defense commitments from the other members of the alliance were still firm and includes the united states. the u.s. has all along supported and very closely ashrined with turkish policy with regard to the regime and the need for asad to go and end repression. the problem is, that neath are the turks or the united states have been able to, don't have any leverage on assadand no able to convince him and he has looked more are to his iranian and russian supporters to try retain power in the hopes that perhaps the reluctance of the west and his own reegg pression will allow him to remain in power. >> richard in florida, pent caller, you are up. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning.
>> caller: thank you. if you please allow me to finish. it appear that's the obama administration is working with muslim brotherhood and al ga q dan the mideast to systematically eliminate the regimes in all the countries and also christian anti-and judaism, and lib, you know, obama administration working with al qaeda giving them support, intelligence and weapons, you know, to take out what was left of a dave if i's government and it looks like it is going on in sir why, now. wouldn't that be iron fick we found out that our ambassador over there was actually killed by weapons supplied by us to al qaeda? it kind of reminds me of what was going on in the '9os when we sent our marines in there to distribute food and
they were attacked by the identifying elements that were in that country and al qaeda was involved in that. >> host: we are short on time. glaes ahead. stephen? degrees there is no rid of the sinaean where that the u.s. would supply arms to al qaeda. certainly, that would not be in anyway in the u.s.'s interest. in fact, what i alluded to earlier, the criticism from the syrians who are fight is that the u.s. and others are putting pressure on the saudis and others allegedly who provide them with weapons to not to provide them with the capabilities they need to really win the struggle, so i think that if anything, the u.s. is being criticized within syria for not doing enough to help the syrian fighters and it certainly not engaged if anything, it has been continuing to urge restraint and try to prevent this from escalating into a wider regional conflict.
>> host: there are no good options. nobody can prepredict the outcome of getting involved on larger scale. >> guest: no. i think this is reflected. think that i is a gad point. it has been reflected in the difficulty in the shaping of policy and that balance between yes everyone would prefer a diplomatic solution but yes why itette is clear in the absence of the diplomatic losing. the civil war is deepening parties that become more radicalized and becoming more bloody with now we see this potential for spillover that could lead to a big confrontation in the reg gog that would put eventually, syria and turkey at odds back by the turkey back by the west, syria backed by iran and russia into a much wider conflict and that is what now this new urgency this week everyone is trying to work to avoid diplomatically and we'll have a nato defense ministers just so happens on schedule actually coming monday so this will, i am sure, be a conversation that